Tuesday, February 12, 2013

"Follow-Up From Yesterday"

Starting with the
sixties and escalating rumblingly through Reagan’s eighties till today, two equally
powerful factions emerged in this country that made us as polarized as any generation
in our nation’s history.An arguably
even more polarized era occurred during the 1780’s and 90’s, when the
country was just getting off the ground.Here’s how they tackled this perplexing predicament:

Anna calls me up from college.She has a report to write on Federalist Paper #10.She needs my help.My help, it turns out, is limited, because at
that moment, I have no idea what Federalist
Paper #10 is.I tell Anna I will
call her back.

I hang up and find a book that includes all the Federalist Papers.It turns out, theFederalist
Papers are a series of 85 “anonymous” essays (written by Hamilton, Jay and
Madison, indicating that people in Colonial times were no better at keeping
secrets than we are today), which were published in the newspapers, and were intended
as public arguments in favor of the recently passed U.S. Constitution, which
still required ratification by the individual states.

I flipped to and read Federalist
Paper #10. Federalist 10, dealing primarily with the sovereignty issue – who’s
the boss, the federal government or the states? – was also concerned with the
troubling issue of factions, because back then – as we also see today – two
dominating and uncompromising factions could throw the governing process into
terminal paralysis.Everyone postures,
and nothing gets done.

Since, in a democracy, factions of likeminded people banding
together to promote common personal interests cannot be forbidden – that would
hardly be democratic – it was proposed to mitigate their negative effects by
encouraging the formation of bunches of
factions.

Here’s why they thought that was a good.In order to defeat the “majority”, several of
these mini-factions would be forced to agree to alliances, by which they would
cobble together enough support for the issue at hand to carry the vote for
their side.These negotiated alliances
would also be useful for paring away the extremes.

Depending on what issue was under debate, these factional
alignments would inevitably shift.But,
however the arrangement, this coalitional strategy would always be present, to
keep the “majority’s” from throwing its weight around and inevitably having its
way.

(WARNING: I
have been known to not totally understand the things I have read especially if
they’re hard, leading me to generate conclusions that are either garbled,
misinterpreted or flat out wrong.If you are writing a report on Federalist Paper #10, and you happen to
come upon this blog post and are considering plagiarizing its contents – because
who’s gonna know? – you should understand that the above observations are far
from definitive, possibly inaccurate, and may not even get you a “C.”

My advice is to check out a reputable historian on these
matters – or even better, a number of them – and plagiarize them instead. This is sure to work out better for you in the
long run.Especially if you don’t get
caught.)

I called Anna back at college.I said I have a unique way of talking about
the issues in Federalist Paper #10,
and Anna said, “Tell me.”So I did.

I proposed analogizing the factional problem faced by our
Founding Fathers with the landmark 1950’s
musical, West Side Story.This is no giant intellectual leap.Who wouldn’t?

West Side Story
involves the clash of two warring New York street gangs, the Sharks and the Jets, which –spoiler alert! – does not end happily.(Based on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, West Side
Story provided a similar body count, minus dead Juliet, who they needed
alive to sing “There’s A Place For Us.”)

Behold your “Common Denominator” right there - two
factions.Hostile, unbending,though both sides are really good dancers.I told Anna to consider how much more cheerfully
things might have turned out if, as Federalist
10 suggested, there had been more
factions involved, groups who could have formed self-serving alliances, banding
together, to fashion a less funereal resolution.

For fun, let’s count how many factions could have been
possible:

The Sharks and the
Jets – two factions.

“Officer Krupke” and the NYPD
– another faction.

The candy store owner and other neighborhood merchants who
are losing business because customers, intimidated by the Sharks and the Jets, are
afraid to go outside and shop – a third
faction.

The Sharks’
girlfriends and the Jets’
girlfriends, tired of singing, “A boy like that, who kill you brah-ther” could
band together to form a boyfriend-preserving “Gang Members’ Girlfriends
Association.”

Innocent bystanders, injured in the course of these
internecine rumbles, could create their own
alliance, acronymed “BAR”, standing for “Bystanders Against Ricochets.”

Garbage can concerns could team up, lobbying for better labeling:
“These Lids Are For Use As Garbage Can Tops Only, Not Shields.”

“The West Side Story Experiment”
– more factions, less undiluted power, leading hopefully to a more satisfying,
albeit less tearjerking, finale.

Anna wrote her paper based on my suggestions.Her teacher later praised her, less for her understanding of Federalist Paper #10 than for being the
first student to his knowledge who ever explained this important historical
document through the metaphorical example of a groundbreaking musical.

This story came to mind as a result of the recent slaying of
the schoolchildren in Connecticut.I
wondered – and actually wrote a (not published) “Letter to the Editor” to that
affect.Why, I wondered, were there not more
factions associated with gun ownership than simply the National Rifle Association, ones offering varying and possibly
moderating voices, challenging the single and inflexible organization that apparently seems to represents them all.

How about a National Hunters’
Association, promoting the specific interests of hunters, but open to the
tightening of regulations on guns hunters don’t kill animals with?

How about a Sport
Shooting Association, lobbying for whatever’s necessary for shooting at
targets but not people who happen to be attending a late-night movie.

How about a “Historical Gun Appreciation Association” for
people who collect classic weaponry because they think they’re really cool, but
which, if used, would take considerably longer to mow down a classroom full of
Kindergarteners.

To name just three.

Multiply the factions.For a better chance at middle-ground reasonability, resulting from reducing the influence of what is currently “The Only Game In Town.”

Of course, as I mentioned, I could easily have completely misconstrued
Federalist Paper #10.So my preamble here could be just nutso.